7v\Q 


■ 


fc> 


UNITED  STATES  DEPARTMENT  OF  AGRICULTURE 
jaus  or  Agricultural  Economics  and  Public  Roaos 


ECONOMIC  LIMITS  OF  COST  OF  WATER  FOR  IRRIGATION 
Boulder  County,  Colorado. 


by 


R.  P.  Teele,   Agricultural  Economist 
Bureau  or  Agricultural  Economics 


ANC 


Paul  A.    Ewing,    Associate    Irrigation   Economist 
Bureau   of   Public   Poacs 


A    Preliminary    Report 


The    WORK    ON    WHICH     THIS    report     IS    BASED    WAS    DONE    UNDER    a.    COOPERA- 
TIVE    AGREEMENT    BETWEEN     THE    BUREAUS    OF     AGRICULTURAL    EcONU*  I  M  ...A"  ■  ~.  Pu3 
ROACS,     AND     IS     A    PART     OF     A     ^Er.'ERAL    STUDY     OF     THE     ECONOMIC     L1MIT3    OF     TH 
COST     OF    WATER    FOR     IRRIGATION    CARRIED    ON     £3Y     THE     COOPERATING    BUREAUS*) 


0 


THE  ECONOMIC  LIMITS  OF  COST  OF  WATER  FOR  IRRIGATION 
Boulder  County,  Colorado. 

By  R.  p.  1     .  A. a i cultural  Economist,  Bureau  of   Agricultural  Economics 

and 
Paul  A.  Ewing,  Associate  Irrigation  Economist,  Bureau  of  Public  Roads 


■aODUCTION 
The  survey  on  which  this  report  is  based  is  a  part  oh"  a  general 
STUDY  OF  FARMING  under  irrigation  made  for  the  purpose  of  determining  how 

MUCH    FARMERS    CAN    AFFORD    TO     PAY    FOR    WATER.         It     IS    OBVIOUS     THAT    COST    OF 
WATER     IS     ONLY     ONE     ITEM     IN     THE    FARMER'S     COST     OF     PRODUCING    CROPS     AND     THAT 
THE    PERMISSIBLE    COST    OF     PRODUCTION     DEPENDS    ON     RECEIPTS.  CONSEQUENTLY,      IT 

IS    NOT     POSSIBLE     TO    MAKE    A.    DEFINITE    STATEMENT    AS     TO     PERMISSIBLE    COST    OF    WATER 
FOR    ANY     TYPE     OF     FARMING.  It      IS     POSSIBLE,     HOWEVER,      TO    GET     COMPREHENSIVE 

TA     AS     TO     COSTS     AND    RETURNS     FROM    FARMING     UNDER     IRRIGATION,     AND    ON     THE    BASIS 
OF     THE     OATA     AS     TO    OTHER    COSTS     AND    AS     TO    RETURNS,     DETERMINE    APPROXIMATELY 
HOW    MUCH     NET     RETURN      IS     AVAILABLE     FOR     PAYING     FOR     WATER.  Th  I  S     STUDY    .WAS     MADE 

on  that  basis. 

Incidental  to  the  main  purpose  was  the  desire  to  get  information 
as  to  the  cost  of  clearing  and  leveling  land,  building  farm  ditches,  etc. 

Field  work  on  the  project  began  in  the  spring  of  1924,  when 

SURVEYS  WERE  MADE  IN  THE  SOUTHWEST,   IN  TEXAS  AND  New  MEXICO,  AND  IN  COLORADO. 

The  schedules  used  called  for  much  the  same  information  called  for  by  the 
Bureau  of  the  Census  in  its  census  of  agriculture,  and  when  provision  was 
maoe  for  taking  an  agricultural  census  in  1925,  arrangements  were  made  to 
have   the   enumerators,   when    they  made   the  canvass   for   the   bureau   of   the 

-et   the  additional    information   needed  for   this  study.      a  8upplcv cntal 
schedule   containing   the  additional    inquiries   was   prepared,    and  arrangqrfents 


"«  RC  MAOt  FOR  MAVIMQ  THESE  BILLED  BY  Th  C  CENSUS  ENUMERATORS.    ENUMERATORS 
M  SELECTED  WITH  CARE  ANO  OIVeN  8PECIAL  INSTRUCTION  AND  SUPERVISION. 

The   plans  were  made  ►  or  getting   two   statements:       (l)    a   complete 

TEMENT    OF     COST    ANO    RETURN8    TOR    A    6  INGLE    SEASON.        Th  1 6    APPLIED    BOTH     TO 
OWNERS     OPERATING     THEIR     OWN    FARMS     AND    TO     TENANTS,     ANO    PROVIOEO    A     BASIS     FOR 
DETERMINING     THE    RETURNS     TO     THE    OWNERS    OF    FARMS     OPERATED    BV     TENANTS    AS    WELL 
AS     TO     TH08E    OPERATING    THEIR     OWN    FARMS.         (2)        A    8TATEMENT     OF     THE    FINANCIAL 
PROGRE66    MAOE    BV    FARMER6    FROM     THE     TIME    WHEN     THEY     ACQUIRED    THEIR    FARMS     TO 
THE    TIME     OF     ENUMERATION.         Th 1 6 ,     OF     COURSE,     APPLIED    ONLY     TO    FARMERS     OPERATING 

the  »r  own  farms. 

The  survey  was  made  in  December,  1924,  and  January  and  February,  1925. 
The  census  schedule  called  for  inventory  items  as  of  January  I,  1925,  and 

FOR     PRODUCTION     ITEMS    FOR     THE    CALENDAR    YEAR,      1924.         The    SUPPLEMENTAL    SCHEDULE 
CALLED    FOR     A     LIVESTOCK     INVENTORY     AS     OF     JANUARY      I,      1924,     FOR     ADDITIONAL      IN- 
FORMATION    AS     TO    FARM     EXPENSES    AND    RECEIPT8    FROM    FARM     PRODUCTS     FOR    THE 
CALENDAR    YEAR     1924,     AND    FOR     THE     INFORMATION     DESIRED    AS     TO     PURCHASE    PRICE, 
CONDITIONS     AT     THE     TIME     OF     SETTLEMENT,     ANO     IMPROVEMENTS     WADE    SINCE     PURCHASE. 

THIS     CANVASS     WAS    MADE     IN    SELECTED     DI6TRICTS     ONLY.        WHILE     ENUMERATORS 
IN    THESE     DISTRICT8    WERE     INSTRUCTED    TO    GET    SUPPLEMENTAL     SCHEDULES    FROM    ALL 
FARMS     ON    WHICH     IRRIGATION    W*6     PRACTICED,     THE    OBJECT    WAS     TO    OBTAIN     THOROur.HLY 
REPRESENTATIVE    6AMPLES ,     RA THER    THAN    TO     GET     COMPLETE     RETURN6.        CONSEQUENTLY, 
ENUMERATORS    WERE     INSTRUCTED    NOT     TO     INSIST    ON    REPORTS    FROM    FARMERS    WHO     OB- 
JECTED   TO    AN6WCRING    THE     INQUIRIE8,     OR    FROM     THOSE    WHO    WERE    UNABLE    TO    GIVE 
INFORMATION    ASKED    FOR. 

DEFINITIONS    OF     TERMS     USED    AND    EXPLANATIONS     OF    METHODS    FOLLOWED    ARE 
EN     ON     PAQC634    ANO    35    AT     THE    CLOSE    OF     THIS     REPC 

-2- 


RC  ODUiMTN  .     J 

The     TERRITORY     COVERED    B>  URVEY      IN     BouiPCP     Coi'NTV,     C  0% 

CONSISTED    Of-"     TWO    CENSUS     ENUMERATION     DISTRICTS,     ONI     NfAH     T!  ■      0*-" 

Boulder,  and  one  near  the  city  op  longmont.    In  f- act,  it  was  necessary 
to  throw  out  some  of  the  schedules  obtained  because  while  the  nf  arms  "ful- 
filled the  census  definition,  they  were  clearly  cupurfan  hcmts  ,  whose 
owners  obtained  most  of  their  incomes  from  othkr  sources. 

The  .  ereo  by  the  survey  ret  their  watlr  supply  from  Boulcer 
Creek  and  Sa  vt  '.  =;ains  Creek,  and  from  reservoirs  filled  from  these  streams 
during  non  ~l  rr  i  gat  ing  seasons. 

-ter  ri3hts  are  in  the  form  of  stock  in  the  companies  controll!-. 
the  irrigation        ang  reservoirs,  and  the  original  cost  of  construction 
)  been  paio  for  many  years.    in  practice,  the  water  rights  go  with  the 

I 

land,  and  the  values  placed  on  the  farms  include  the  value  of  the  water 
supply,  and  the  purchase  prices  reported  include  water  as  well  as  land  and 
improvements.    in  ssneral  the  water  su°ply  is  ample. 

Agriculture  is  quite  diversified,  although  the  larger  part  of  the 

RETLRNS     TO    FARMERS     COME    FROM     TWO     CROPS     "     GRAIN     AND    SUGAR    BECTS.         ThFGE    ARE 

AR  FACTORIES   IN  THE  VICINITY,  AND  THE  REGION  IS  WELL  SUPPLIED  WITH  RAIL- 
WAY lines  ~  -iways.   It  is  connected  wth  Denver  by  interuroan  car 
. 
The  land  is  somewhat  rolling,  and  the  farms  contain  more  rough  and 
waste  lano  than  those  in  some  of  the  other  sections  purveyed. 

RESULTS  OF  THE  SURVEY 

-EDULES  WERE  OBTAINED  *■  OR  d  I  C?  f   ARMS  ,  OF  WHICH   105  WERE  OPERATED 
BY  THE i R  OWNERS  ANO  107  WERE  OPERATED  BY   TENANTS.    ASSUMIN.  THAT  THE  FARMS 

-3- 


COVERED    t  F     The     RE~iON,     THERE      l  6    ABOUT    50     PER 

I    THIS    I 
IN     TM(      TABLES     THAT    FOLLO*i     ALL    FARMS    ARE    GROUPEO    BY     WNET    RETURN," 
THAT     18     THE     EXCES8    OF     RECEIPTS    FROM    FARM     PRODUCTS    OVER    EXPENDITURES    FOR 
'    ARM     PURPOSES, 

SUMMARY 
The   sections   or   Boulder  County    covered  by    the   survey   lie    in    that 

PARI  JLORAOO    WHERE     T  R    BEET8      IS     THE    MOST     IMPORTANT 

CULTURAL     ACTIVITY.  TmE     FARMS     ARE     FAIRLY     LAR.C,      AMD    MOST     OF     THE 

ACREAGE     IS     COVERED    BY    WATER    R I 3HTS  ,     AND,     THEREFORE    SUITABLE    FOR     GROWING 
BEET8. 

Values  of  las:  <«ith  water  and  improvements  are  not  high.   The 
average  value  for  the  farms  reported  as  operated  by  their  owners  was  $149 

PER     ACRE,     AND     THE     AVERAGE     VALUE    FOR     FARMS     OPERATED    BY      T      .a.TS     WAS     $146 
PER  "ARMS     SHOW    LARGER     PARTS     O*-      THE     LAND    UNDER    WATER 

HTS     ANO     IN     CROPS,     THE     PERCE  BEING     76    FOR     THE     OWNER-OPERATED 

'ARMS,     AND     89    f"OP     T  fcTCO    FARMS. 

'ME    f  ARMS     OPERATED    BY     THEIR    OWNERS     THE     AVERAGE     VALUE    OF     LAND 
9UILOIN-.5    WAS     $  It?, 843,      THE    AVERA  iE     VALUE     OF      IMPLEMENTS     ANO    MACHINERY 
WAS     $68i\     AND    OF     LIVC8T0C  * ,     AND    CASH     ON     H  ■     TOTAL 

JE     OF  'ARM.  ThL     AVERAGE      INDEBTEDNESS     WAS     $2,979,      LEAVING 

NVESTMENT     OF     $11,545    PER    FARM. 

Th  ..'A     EXPENDITURES     PER     FARM    FOR     THE     OWNER-OPERATED 

i/kiMs  *  .  *95.        The    l;  hired  labor 

BECAUSE    0>  VALCNCE     OP     Bf  jWING.         The     NEXT    L'-  <M    WAS 

INTEREST    ON     DEBTS,     ANO     The     Th  TmaT     T^D    TO 

BC    FIXCO    ANO    ha.  ON     TO    ANNUAL     PROCXJCTION    -     INTEREST,     T/.XES  , 


AND    WATER     CHARGES    -    ->  IQREGATE     .  OP     THE     TOTAL  0. 

The   average   receipts    per.  ■-gom  fa;jm   products   for    I         ,      or   the 

owner—op1: ^.a ted  farms   were   $1,512,   leaving    a  net   return   of    $517   per  farm, 
Allow  net    investment   at   the   current  local    rate  of    interest 

(7.0  per   cent)    and  depreciation  on   buildings   at   3   per   cent,    and  on    im- 
plements  and  machinery  at    17   per  cent,    the  average  farm  fell   short   of   meet' 

THESE  3     BY     $<t93.         The    AVERAGE    RECEIPTS    FROM     OUTSIDE    LABOR    AND    THE    HIRE 

OF    FARM    ANIMALS     ANO    EQUIPMENT    WERE    $145     PER    FARM,     MAKING     A     NEGATIVE    LABOR 
INCOME    OF     $348    NOT    TAKING     INTO    ACCOUNT     THE     RENT    AND    FAMILY     LIVING     QBTAINEO 
FROM     THE     FARM. 

For    101    of   the  farmers   operating   their   own  farms   whose  schedules   were 
complete  h    to  show  their   progress   since  settlement,    the   average    initial 

net  worth  was   $6,072  and  their  present  net  worth    is   $11,347,   making  an    i  n~ 

-E     I    .     NET    WORTH     OF     $5,275.        The    AVERAGE     PERIOD    OF     OCCUPANCY     HAS    BEEN     12 

years,  making  an  average  annual  increase  in  net  worth  of  $440.   about  one- 
half  of  this  increase  arises  from  in  ureases  in  values  of  real  estate. 

For  the  farms  operated  by  tenants  the  average  value  per. farm  for 
10  AND  EUILDINGS  WAS  $20,699.   The  AVERAGE  GR036  return  to  the  owners  of 
THESE  "ATMS  WAS  7.2  PER  CENT  ON  THIS  VALUATION,  THE  NET  ^RETURN  OVER  EXPENDI- 
TURES WAS  5.5  PER  CENT,  ANO  OVER  EXPENDITURES  ANO  DEPRECIATION  5.2  PER  CENT. 

The  average  value   of   tenant   property   per  farm  was   $2,5SI,    and   the 
tenants1    cedts  averaged  $422,   making  a   net    investment  of    $2,159. 

The  average  net  return   to   tenants  -   excess    of   receipts   from  farm 
products   over  expenditures   for  farm   purposes   was   $1,136   per  farm,   which 

16    $619    GREATER     THAN     THE     NET    RE  "0    OWNER-OPERATORS .  ThE    AVERAOE 

LABOR     INCOME    OF     TENANTS    WAS    $95£ ,     WHICH     18    $1,305    GREATER     THAN     THE     LABOR 
INCOME    OF     OWNER-OPERATOR     .  Th I S    EXCESS     18     DUE     IN    PART     TO    THE    LARGER 

-5- 


DEDUCTION  »T;OM  TmI   iNCOm  I  ]  R8  ON  ACCOUNT  OK   INTEREST  ON 

INVC8TMCNT  ANO  D£  PREC  I  AT  I  ON  ON  BUILDINGS  AND  EQUIPMENT. 

3   OPERATED  BY   THF.lR  OWNERS 
The    D~T~    Rf LATINO    TO    t  AfTMS    operateo   by    their    owners    are    presented 
in   Taoles    I    to  7. 

Size  .ms   and  Uses   of    Land,    1924 

.IVES  FOH  EACH  or  THE  INCOME  GROUPS  The  NUMBER  OF"  FARMS, 

average  size  or  farms,  the  average  acreage  per  farm  in  crops,  in 

PA       ,  AND  COVERED  BV  WATER  RIGHTS. 

Of    the    105  farms,    if3    reported  farm   expenditures    in   excess   of 
receipts   from  farm   products,    and  52  additional  farm8   reported  net   returns 
less    than   $1,000.      Assuming    that   $1,000   represents   a  fair   return   for   the 

or  of    the   farm   operator   and  his   family,   more    than    three—fourths    of    the 
farm?   show   net   returns    less    than  wa3e6    for   the   operator   and  his   family, 

0I8RESARD:  N  1  THE  PART  OF  THE  FAMILY  LIVING  OBTAINED  FROM  THE  F"aRM  WITH 

>R  INTEREST  AND  DEPRECIATION.     THE  LARGEST  GROUP  OF  FARMS   IS  THAT 
SHOWING  NET  RETURNS  OF  $|  TO  $999,  AND  THE  NEXT  LARGEST  GROUP  IS  THAT 
SHOWING  NET  LOSSES. 


TaHLE      !.         0*NER~OPERATOR    rARMS     CLASSJFIED    BY     NET     RETURNS      \J  , 

Average   size  of   farms   and  uses   or    land,    I9e?4 


Item 


-•  -* 


Acreage  per  farm      

rops   harvester)  per 

•  •••••••• 

•e   or    area   of    f~ 


UN  I  T 


Nc 

ACRE 


ACRE 
P    CT 


arms  : Farms   •_ 


OF     CROP    FAILURE     PER    FARM     ACRE: 

RES     :p    CT 

-  RE     PER    FARM  !      ~RE 

--REA     OF     r  ARM         IP     CT 

RED    BY     WATER     RIGHTS! 

PER    FARM IACRE 

£    OF     AREA     OF     FAR. IS      '.P     CT 


AVEf 

SHOWING 

OF     ALL     . 

net      : 

FA' 

LOSTES : 

28   : 

86 

6i£    : 

50 

36   : 

58 

: 

if 

1    : 

5 

3    : 

21 

21    : 

c>4 

33    : 

65 

:                : 

76 

:        93    : 

0  1,000*  $L\  000- 


4 


108 

6! 


22 

13 


00 

56 


$3,000 

OR    CVT.R 


2 


138 
79 

0 
0 

0 
0 


74 


?EHC  RE     COMPUTEO    FROM     THE     TOTALS     FOR     THE     "ROUP. 


RETURN,"    AS    USED     IN     CLASSIFYING     FARMS,      IS     THE    EXCESS     OF     RECEIPTS 
.-iM     PRODUCTS     OVER     EXPENDITURES     FOR    FARM     PURPOSES. 


^■ER 
rABM,     I  ,  THE     LAN 

WAI  -0P8     IN     1 9i?4 .        H  v,     76    PER    CENT  LAND     IN    •  >6 

E      IRRIGATED    PASTURE.         THE 
OPTS    FOR    FARMS     OPERATED    BY  3     (TABLES     8    TO     12)     SHOW    THAT     :  -MS 

IR    OWNERS     ARE    MUCH    LESS    HIGHLY     DEVELOPED    THAN     THOSE    OPERATEC 
LE     THE     RELATION     IS    NOT     CONSISTS'. T,      THE     LAK..ER    FARMS     ARE 

THE     r  Q.-      THE     ACREAGE    OF      THE     FARMS      IN     HARVESTED    CROPS 

3   to   var.  way. 

Value    of    Farms    and  Farm    Property  , 

[  I NVEf 
YEN  THE  AVERAGE  VALUES  PER  FARM  AND  PER  ACRE 
•  ND,  BUILDINQ8,  LIVESTOCK,   IMPLEMENTS  '.'Y  ,  AND  CASH  ON  HA 

"?M  AND  PER  ACRE,  ANO  THE  AVERA 
PER  ACRE  . 


Table   2.      Owner-operator  farms   classified  bv   net   returns   J/,    IS 

vALUC     OF     FARMS     AND    FARM     PROPERTY,      DEC TS ,     AND 
.VESTMENT     PER    FARM 


.                                  | 

AVE>- 

•  ms    : 

SHO^". 

Farms    si 

$1-      : 

:                0t$     . 

f  M 

:  Un i t  : 

OF     ALL      : 

net          : 

.i     : 

.   99*  s 

: 

•                    i 

:No     : 

farms      : 

losses    : 

Farms 

28: 

52: 

19: 

: 

Acreage    per  farm 

:acre: 

96: 

62: 

49: 

195: 

176: 

174 

Value  of   land  ano  buildi*. 

:dol    : 

12,843: 

12,043: 

9,609: 

19, 

. 

,000 

Average    per  acre 

:  dol    : 

149: 

193: 

195: 

99: 

127: 

PeRC:                       OF     TOTAL     VALUE 

:  dol    : 

89: 

89: 

89: 

87: 

87: 

VALJE     OF     BUILD' 

:  dol   : 

2,852: 

3,650: 

2,296: 

,111: 

2,825: 

. 

Av                      PER    ACRE 

:dol    : 

33: 

59 

46. 

16 

16: 

OF     TOTAL     VALUE 

:P  ct: 

20 

27 

21 

14. 

1  1  . 

1 1 

Value   of   la\d 

• 

:dol    • 

9,991 

8,393 

7,313 

15, 168 

19,513, 

. 

PER    ACRE 

:  dol    : 

1  !6 

134 

148 

33 

140 

PERCt                      OF     TOTAL     VALUE 

:p  ct: 

59. 

62. 

68- 

73 

76 

73 

_EMENTS     ANO 

: 

: 

H  INERY 

:  roL 

682 

568 

440 

•  ,446 

902 

: 

=  ER     ACRE 

:  DOL 

8 

9 

9 

:             7 

:            5 

Percentage   of    total    value 

:p  ct 

:               5 

4 

4 

:             7 

:            4 

: 

je   of    Livestock 

:  DOL 

:          817 

:          785 

:        552 

:        989 

:    1  , 

.       . 

AVERAGE     PER    ACPE 

:dol 

:               9 

:             13 

:           1  1 

:             5 

:           1  i 

: 

IE     OF     TOTAL     VALUE 

:p  ct 

:               6 

:               6 

:             5 

:             4 

:            8 

: 

■ 

:  dol 

:           182 

:            93 

:         156 

:        345 

:        375 

:         175 

*ALUE     PER    FARM 

• 

:  dol 

:    14, 

:    13. 

:  10,757 

: 22,059 

:  25 , 540 

:33, 

-..-•- 

:  DOL 

:           168 

:           216 

:        219 

:         1  13 

: 

: 

TS 

:  DOL 

:      2,979 

:      4 , 597 

:    1,969 

:    2,686 

:    7. 

:            0 

=ER    ACRE 

:  DOL 

:             34 

:             74 

:          40 

14 

44 

: 

Percentage  of    total    value 

:p  ct 

:              21 

: 

18 

: 

30 

: 

•  VESTML 

• 

:dol 

:    1 1,545 

:      8,892 

:    8,788 

,373 

:  17, 

. 

Average   per  acre 

:dol 

134 

:           142 

:       179 

: 

101 

: 

PEf-                    .  E     OF     TOTAL     VALUE 

:p  ct 

:             79 

:             66 

82 

:          39 

: 

: 

CS     PER     ACRE    AND    PERCL  ,    ARE    COMPUTED    FROM     THE     T0TAL8    FOn    THE    GROUPS 

\j  fiVT     RETURN,"    AS    USEO     IN     CLASSIFYING     TARf/  F.XCES8     OF     RECEIPTS     ' 

FARM     PRODUCTS     CVER    EXPENDITURES    FOR    FARM     PURPOSES. 


UP  SHOWIf.   •   "  LOSSES,  THC  VALUE  OF  LAND  AND 
8UILOINQB  ANO  OF  LAND  ALONE  VARIES  CONSISTENTLY  WITH  NET  RETURNS.   FOR 

I,  VALUES  Or  ALL   IT  M     <CEPT  CASH  ON  HAND 
*  Than  THOSE  r0R  thc  NEXT  H        INCOME  iROUP.   DEBTS  F  OR  THIS 
GROUP  AS  *  VALUES  ARE        u     THAN  r0R  THE  NEXT  HIGHER  INCOME  GROUP 

*BT8  CONSTITUTE  A  KJOHER  PERCENTAGE  OF  TOTAL  rARM  VALUE  FOR  THIS 
-  ANY  C-        *OUP.     THIS   IS  A  FURTHER  REASON  WHY  THESE  FARMS 
IN  THIS  GROUP. 

Costs   and  Returns.     1 9e?4 
Table   3  presents   for   the  same   groups  of   farms,    the   full    data  for 

OVE'  OSTS     AND    RETURNS,     AS    WELL     AS     DIRECT    EXPENDITURES     AND    RE~ 
FROM  FARM     PRODUC  D    COMPARISONS     BCTWEEN     VARIOUS     GROUPS     OF      I  T 
S(>-                                                               TH|S     TACLE     ARE     GIVEN      |\     P3ECCDING     TABLES,     BUT    ARE     RE- 
HERE  FOR    CONVENIENCE     IN    MAKING    COMPARISON. 


-10- 


Table  3.      Owner-operator   »-arms   class ifieo  pv   net  returns    \J ,    1924: 
Average  cost    \no  returns   »et  farm,    1TL'    . 


We  i  gmteo:Fa» 

Farms    showing 

2L 

: 

AVE' 

- 

$'•  ,000, 

.    .    00 

,  CO 

1  TEM                                                   t  UAJ  T  T 

CF     ALL  •  :\'ET        ' 

J9 

$1 , 

. 

OR    OVER 

FARM8     :L086ES 

Farms 

Mo- 

: 

52 

1   •       19 

•  4 

2 

Acreage    per  farm 

IACRE 

36 

62 

:           49 

195 

176 

174 

Total   value 

COL     , 

14,584 

:    13,- 

:  10,757 

: 22,059 

,540 

:33,346 

Total   debts 

DOL' 
DOL     ! 

2,979 

1    "4.597 

:•  \  .959 

1    2.636 

.    7,' 

0 

\et    investment 

1 1 . 545 

:      8.882 

:    8. 733 

[19.373 

17.875 

> 

,    ..   .. 

. 

...  _. . 

* 

> 

Cos* 

Farm   expenditures 

DOL    : 

995 

I       1  ,  1 57 

:        639 

. • 1 ,425 

i    I  ,795, 

1    2,309 

Interest  on  net    investment 

AT    7     PER    CENT 

IDOL 

,      808 

:          622 

:        615 

:    1 , 356 

:    1,251 

1    2,334 

,    Depreciation   on   builcings 

:      *•*. 

ANO    MACMl  NERY 

IDOL 
IDOL 

202 

205 

144 

:        339 

. 

Total   costs 

2.005 

:       1  . 9 

:    1  , 

:■  3. 

■i  , 

4,' 

Rece i ots: 

\ 

Farm   receipts 

IDOL 

I      1,512 

:           694 

:-  1,064' 

:    2,879 

4, 1731 

6,306 

LABOR    OFF     THE    FARM8 

DOL 

1  1  1 

:               0 

:         196 

:          59 

'  81: 

0 

HIRE     O"     WOR*     ANIMALS 

DOL 

8-:              0 

l      *       9 

:.  -     '"•  8, 

50: 

0 

Hire   of  fapm  machincry 

,  DOL 

8:             0 

l            4 

1           34 

0, 

0 

-ER    RECEIPTS    FROM    FARM 

. 

• 

or    equipment 

DOL 
.DOL     . 

1 

18 

:               0 

0 

:          96: 

0: 

0 

Total  receipts 

.       1 . 657 

:  ■     •:•••  - 

l  v  \ .  273 

.    3.078 

4.304! 

6,306 

ss    OF    receipts   from   farm 

: 

■ 

products  ; 

1 
I 

1 

Over  expenditures 

IDOL-  -1 

1          517- 

;        *-4£3 

:      +425 

1     1,454. 

2,378: 

3,997 

Over   expenditures  and    in- 

terest   ON   NET     INVEST- 

',               : 

: 

MENT 

IDOL 

-291 

:      -1085 

l      -190 

98 

1  ,127 

1,663 

Over    expenditures,    interest 

ON    NET     INVESTMENT 

AND    DEPRECIATION 

1  DOL 

1        -433 

:      -  1  29 1 

I     -334 

-241: 

889: 

1,406 

LXCE88    OF     TOTAL     RECEIPTS: 

: 

Over   expenditures 

:ool 

:          662 

\      -463 

:        632 

l 1 , 653 

.    2,509:    3,997 

Over  expenditures  and    in-    : 

:.               : 

: 

: 

TERCET    ON    NET                         '. 

INVESTMENT                                 :  COL 

! 

:-*'!, 085 

:       tl7 

i        297" 

1 , 258 ; 

1,663 

Over    expenditures,    interest 

ON    NET     INVESTMENT    AND 

: 

3£  PR  EC  I  ATI  ON 

:  DOL 

: 

:    -1  ,291 

;      -127 

1 

:    1,020, 

1,406 

J     "NET    RETURN,"    AS    USED     IN    CAL66l*VrN<3    FARMS     IS     THE    EXCE68    of    receipts    FROM 
iM     PRODUCTS     OVER    EXPENDITURES    FQR    FARM    PURPOSES. 


Tmg    Av  .    ro«    ALL    FARMS,     ~.IVEN     IN     THE    FIRST    COLUMN    OF     TABLE    3, 

Of     SPECIAL  ^T     AS    REPRESENTING     THE     GENERAL     EXPERIENCE    OF     OWNER" 

OPERATOR    FARMERS     IN     BOULOER    COUNTV    FOR     THE    SEASON     OF      1924.  The    AVERAGE 

TOTAL     VALUE     PER    FARM     16     $14,524    AND    THE    AVERAGE     INDEBTEDNESS     PER    FARM     IS 

$2,979,    LEAVING  a   MET    investment  of    $11,545.      On    the  average,    the   farmers 
have    debt6    equal    to  only   about   one~f!fth   of    the   total   value   of   their   property; 
or,   stateo   the   other  way,    they  have  an    equity    of   about   80   per  cent    in   their 
property.      This    16   a  much   lower  percentage   of    indebtedness   than    is   shown  by 
most  farm  surveys, 

The   average    excels    per  farm  of    receipts   from  farm   products   over  ex- 
penditures   FOR    THE    SEASON    OF     1924    WAS    BUT    $517     IN    ADDITION     TO    THE,RENT    AND 

family   living   from   the  farm,    but  allowing  no    interest  on    investment  and 
nothing   for   depreciation. 

The  average  net   return   per  farm   lacked  $493. of   being  sufficient   to 
meet    the    interest  on   the  net    investment  at  the   current,    local    interest   rate, 

AND     DEPRECIATION.         The    AVERAGE    RECE I PT6    FOR     OUTSIDE    LABOR    AND    THE     HIRE    OF 

farm  animals   an d  equ i pmcnt  were   $145   per   farm  making   a   negative  net  return 
of    $348    per   farm. in   addition    to   the   ren  t  an  d  .f  am  i  ly    living   obtained  from   the 
farm.      Similar    data  for  :each  of    the  groups   are  given    in    the  other  columns 
of    the    table. 

aooing  recei  pts  .from   outsioe  labor    to  receipt8   from  farm   products, 
about    three-fourths    of    the   farms    did  not    receive   enough    to  meet    expenditures, 
interest   on    investment,    and   dep9ec  i a  t i  on .      another   group  containing    19  farms 
also  fell   short  of   enough   to  pay    interest  ano  depreciation,    putting  94  per 

P  ARMS      IN     THIS     CLAGS;         The    FARMERS      IN     THIS     SECTION    HAVE    SMALL      IN~ 
,     ano    ONLY     ;  ■    ,  .:  OURTM    OF     the    farms, 

»*ILCO    TO    MEET    EXPENDITURES    AND    DEPRECIATION. 

-12- 


Receipts  from  farm   products   ano   total  receipts   both   varv   with   • 

RETURNS . 

The     3R0UP    SHOWING    NET    LOSSES    REPORT6     expenditures    HIGHER    THAN     THfcBE 
REPORTED    SV     THE    NEXT    HIGHER     ^ROUP    AND    THE     LOWEST    RETURNS     FOR    ANY     oROUP.         The 
NET     LOSS     IS     DUt,      T^.REFORE,      T0     a     COMBINATION     OF     HUH     EXPENDITURES     AND    LOW 
RETURNS,     PARTICULARLY      THE    LATTER. 


Classification   jpr    Farm/Expend" 


i  tures 


In    Table  4   are  -given    the  average   amounts    per  farm    expended  for 
^lOUS    CTEMS   ano   the    percentages    that    these   amounts   are    of    the   average 


EXPENDITURES  PER  FARM  AND  AVERAGE  REC 


PTS  PER  FARM. 


TA»LC    -i.        OwNER-OPCPaTOR    r4«'L  CO    BY      .  TURNS    J  , 

Principal  farm   e*  -cr  farm,    IS.  • 


HTLI 

;avc; 

3  Farms 

:sho 

'.'S    1 

SHOWING     NET     OE 

:$l ,00Or 

rufiNS     OF 

:?l    - 

CM 

:Unjt 

:of  all 

:net 

r$999     . 

:$I,9S9 

:$  2,999:   or 

J     FARM^S. 

:los8E8 
:            28 

• 

: 

:    over 

: 

52 

19 

4 

:        2 

PCR     FARM 

:acre 

:            86 

:            62 

49 

:         195 

:         176 

:    174 

Fact                   'JDITURE8 

:ool 

995 

:    1  ,  1 57 

:        639 

:    1,425 

:    1,795 

: 2,309 

PLR    ACRE 

:  DOL 

12 

:        •  19 

13 

:            7 

:           10 

:         13 

P»ECEIPT8    FROM    FARM     PR0DUCT8 

IDOL 

:      1.512 

: 

:    1,064 

,879 

:   4,173- 

:6,306 

"ER    ACRE 

IDOL 

:             18 

:          1  1 

22 

:           15 

:          24 

:        36 

:ool 

:           102 

:        151 

:          91 

:          69 

:          80 

:        75 

■           ft    of   farm 

EXPENOI  TURE8 

:P  ct 

:             10 

:           13 

:          14 

:             5 

:            4 

:          3 

?€'                                     RtCClPtl 

FROM    FARM     PRODUCTS 

;P  qt 

:               7 

:          22 

:            9 

:            2 

:            2 

:           I 

Labor 

IDOL 

:          200 

:         136 

:          99 

:        339 

:        532 

:      922 

Pep                c    of    farm 

EXPENDI  TURES 

:P  ct 

20 

:           17 

:           16 

24 

30 

40 

-CENTAGE    of    receipts 

from  farm  products 

,P    CT 

13 

:          28 

:            9 

:           12 

:           13 

:        15 

Annual   charges   for  water 

IDOL 

1            32 

:          21 

:          22 

:          62 

76 

1      100 

Percentage   of  farm   ex- 

pend! TJRES 

!P    CT 

:              3 

:            2 

3 

. 

:            4 

4 

Pe.              .e   of   receipts 

FROM     FARM     PRODUCTS 

,P    CT 

2 

3 

:            2 

2 

2: 

2 

RE6T    ON     DEBTS 

DOL 

192 

:        298 

:         132 

157 

499, 

0 

Percentage   of   farm  ex- 

penditures 

P    CT 

19, 

26   . 

21, 

II, 

28: 

0 

Percentage   of   receipts 

FROM    FARM     PRODUCTS     I 

P    CT     . 

13, 

43    , 

12: 

5 

12: 

0 

Taxes 

DOL 

172: 

160    : 

118: 

287: 

257: 

450 

Percentage     of   farm  e- 

PENCI  TURE8                           ; 

P  ct    ; 

I7i 

14  : 

19: 

20: 

14] 

19 

Percentage  of   receipts      ; 

-0*^     P  ARM    PRODUCTS     ! 

P    CT     | 

1  1: 

23   : 

1  1: 

10: 

7 

Auto,    truck,   and  tractor 

DOL       : 

115; 

138   : 

85: 

170: 

60: 

166 

Percentage   of  farm  ex-      J 

PENDITURE8 

P    CT     ! 

12; 

12  : 

13: 

12: 

3: 

7 

Pe<-               l   of    reccipts      ! 

;-0M   FARM    products    : 

P  ct    ; 

8! 

20   : 

8: 

6: 

1: 

3 

Miscellaneous 

DOL       : 

152: 

124   : 

81: 

314: 

283: 

586 

c    of   farm  e  • 

PENDITURE8 

15: 

II    : 

13: 

22: 

16: 

25 

•ECEIPT 

•OM    f  AhM    PRODUCTS     I 

P    CT     , 

10: 

: 

B    : 

'  : 

7: 

9 

PER     ACRE    ANC     Pt  ARE     COMPUTEO    FROM 

1/  =>N,"    *6    USED     IN     CLASSIFYING    FARMS,      IS     THE 

FARM    PROOUCTS     OVER     EXPENDITURES    FOR    FARM 


THE     TOTALS    FOR    THE     GROUPS, 
EXCESS     OF     RECEIPTS    FROM 
PURPOSES. 


-14- 


Considering  all  farms  in  one  group,  pay  rop  hireo  labor  »s  the 
laroest  single  i  t€*4  of  expenditure,  interest  on  debts  is  th1      largest, 
and  taxes  make  the  thiro  largest  item.   The  annual  charge  for  water  is  but 
3  per  cent  or  the  total  expenditures,  ano  equals  but  '2   per  cent  of  total 
receipts  from  farm  products- 

For  the  group  showing  net  losses,  the  items  of  expenditure  rank 
the  same  as  ro«  all  farms  /.  i  th  the  exception  of  tnterest  on  debts  which  is 

THE     LARGEST      ITEM    FOR     THE     nNET    LOSS  "    3ROUP.  The     EX PEN O I TURE    FOR     f'EED     IS 

LARGER     T~A\     THE    SAME      ITEM     FOR    ANY     OTHER     GPOUP. 

The     PEBCEVTAii     THAT     EXPENDITURES     FOR    HIRED    LABOR    FORM     OF     THE     TOTAL 

expenditures  varies  with  net  return  except  for  the  group  showing  net  losses. 
In  this  section  this  is  due  to  the  fact  that  the  growing  of  the  profitable 
crop,  b       eets,  involves  large  expenditures  for  labor. 

Class i f i cat i on  of  Rcce i pts  from  Farm  Products 
Table  5  sives  the  average  receipts  per  farm  from  farm  products  and 
average  receipts  per  farm  frqm  the  principal  sources  of  income. 


-15- 


Table   5.      Owner- opera  tor 

FaRM     RETURN6 


'ARMS    Classified    BY    NET 

PER     FARM     FROM     PRINCIPAL 


RETURNS      \J  ,      1924: 
80URCE6     IN     1924 


.hted: 

average  : 

TEM 

Unit  : 

of  all 
farms   : 

FaRM6 

Number; 

ACREAGE  PER  FARM 

acre   : 

86: 

Receipts  from  farm  prooucts 

dollar: 

1,512: 

AvC^a^E  PER  ACRE 

dollar: 

18: 

Livestock 

dollar; 

96: 

Percentage  of  total 

P  CT 

6: 

Poultry 

dollar: 

46: 

Percentage  of  total 

P  CT    | 

3: 

roducts 

[dollar; 

':     182: 

Percentage  of  total 

P  ct   ; 

12: 

Poultry  products 

dollar: 

*  106: 

Percentage  of  total 

P  CT   , 

7: 

jKA  IN 

collar: 

517: 

=?CENTAGE  OF  TOTAL 

P  ct   : 

34: 

collar: 

63: 

Pf     MTAOC  OF  TOTAL 

P  ct   : 

4: 

~R  BEET6 

dollar: 

•  • 

407: 

Percenta  .e  of  total 

P  ct   ; 

27: 

Farms 

Farms 

SHOWl NG : 

$1 

NET 

$999   : 

losses 

28 

52: 

62 

49: 

694 

1,064: 

1  1 

22: 

46 

44: 

7 

4: 

26 

51  : 

4 

5: 

158 

165: 

23 

•  16: 

76 

97: 

1  1. 

9: 

'  179 

263: 

26 

25: 

29: 

47: 

4 

4: 

iaoi 

298: 

17. 

28: 

SHQW  ING     NET     RE  TURNS     Qf 

I  ,000-r$2,000-r   $3,000 

OR 
OVER 


$  1,999: 

$2,999: 

19: 
195 

4: 
176: 

2,879 

15 

4,173: 
24: 

145 
5 

198: 
6: 

33 
1 

183: 
4: 

252 
9 

122: 
3: 

(52 

5 

221: 
5: 

1,389 
48 

1  , 1 57 : 
28: 

146 
5 

150: 
4: 

636 
22 

1,989: 
48: 

2 

174 

6,306 
.     36 

1,500 
24 

56 


439 
7 

80 
1 

2,318 
37 

0 
0 

1,913 
30 


Av  PER     ACRE     AND     PERCENTAGES    ARE    COMPUTED    FROM     THE     TOTALS    FOR     GR0UP8. 

\J     "NET     RETURN,"    AS    U8ED     IN     CLASSIFYING    FARMS,      IS     THE     EXCESS     OF     RECEIPTS 
FROM    FARM     PRODUCTS     OVER    EXPENDITURES     FOR    FARM     PRODUCTS. 


-16- 


The  most  striking  and  s       ant  ►  act  brought  out  in  Taole  5  ts 

THE     iRfAT     IMPORTANCE     OF     GRAIN     IN     THE     AGRICULTURE     Of      THIS     SECTION,     THIS 

CROP    BEING    MORE     IMPORTANT  THAN    SUGAR    BEETS.        RECEJPT6    FROM    SUGAR    BEET8 

CONSTITUTE    27    PER    CENT     OF  THE    TOTAL    RECEIPTS    FROM    FARM     PRODUCT8    FOR    ALL 

FARMS    WHILE    RECEIPTS     FROM  GRAIN    WERE     34     PER     CENT    OF     THE     TOTAL.        On     THE 

OTHER    HAND,     FOR     THE     GROUP  OF     FARMS     SHOWING    NET    LOSSES     RECEIPTS    FROM    SUGAR 

BEETS    ARE     BUT      17     PER     CENT  OF     THE     TOTAL,     WHILE     DAIRY     PRODUCTS    AND    POULTRY 

PRODUCTS     ARE     OF    MUCH    MORE  IMPORTANCE     THAN      IN     THE     OTHER     GROUPS. 

SETTLERS1    PROGRESS 

The    FINANCIAL     PROGRESS     OF     THE    FARMERS    OPERATING     THEIR    OWN    FARMS 

from   the   date   of    purchase    to   the   date   of   enumeration    is    shown  by    table   6. 
The   farms   are   grouped  by    date  of    purchase. 

The  average   purchase    price   of    the  farms    reported  was   $8,950  and 
the   present  value   of   land  and  buildings    is   $12,804,   making  an    increase    in 
the   value   of   $3,854    per    farm.      the   cost   of    improvements   made   6ince    purchase 
has   been    $1,202,   making   a   net    increase    in    value   of    real    estate    if    depreci- 
ation   is    neglected,    of    $2,652   per   farm.      all    groups    of    the   farms    purchased 
prior   to    1320,   show  net    increases    in   value   of  real    estate,   while  all   those 
purchased  since    1919  show  net   losses. 

the   average    initial   net  worth   of    the   0wner6   of    the  farms    reported 
was  $0,072,   and  the  average   present  net  worth    is   $11,347,   making  an    in- 
CREASE     IN    NET    WORTH    OF     $5,275.  The    AVERAGE     PERIOD    OF     OCCUPANCY     HAS     BEEN 
12    YEARS,     MA                   -\1    AVERAGE     ANNUAL     INCREASE      IN    NET    WORTH     OF     $440     PER    FARM. 

THE      INCREASE      IN     VALUE     OF     REAL     ESTATE     EQUALS     ALMOST    EXACTLY     ONE- 
HALF     OF     THE     INCREASE      IN    NET    WO^TH.         RECEIPTS    FROM    OUTSIOE     EMPLOYMENT,     OUT- 
SIDE   CAPITAL     PUT      INTO     THE     FARM,     AND    CAPITAL     TAKEN     OUT     OF     THE    FARMS     ARE 

-17- 


not  law         •  to  be  0»"  grfat  importance. 

Only  one  group  -  that  composed  of  tml  5  farms  purchaseo  in  1923  — 
shows  a  oecrease  in  net  worth. 

In  Table  7  certain  significant  comparisons  are  made.   The  sum  of* 
the  purchase  price  plus  cost  of  improvements  16  compared  with  thl  present 
value  of  the  farms.    *-   amount  of  deferreo  payments  on  the  purchase  price 
is  compared  with  the  present  debts,  deferred  payment6  being  the  nearest 
approach  possible  to  the  amount  0-"  debts  at  the  time  of  purchase. 

The  amounts  of  cash  on  hand  and  values  of  livestock  and  equipment 
at  th[  time  of  purchase  and  at  the  time  of  enumeration  are  compared. 

The     RESULTS     OF     THE    COMPARISON     OF     PURCHASE    PRICE     PLUS    COST    OF     IM- 
PROVEMENTS    AND    PRESENT^ALUE    HAVE    BEEN     DISCUSSED     IN    CONNECTION    WITH     TaBLE    6. 

/      « 

Thf     AVERAGE    FOR     ALL     FARMS     SHOWS     A     SLIGHT     DECREASE     IN     DEBTS.         ElGMT 

of       dup8  show  decreases,  two  show  increases,  and  one  shows  no  change. 
Cash  on  hand  is  unimportant  at  either  period,  but  the  average  for 
all  farms  shows  a  decrease  in  this  item.   all  groups  show  increases  in 
values  of  livestock  and  equipment  except  that  the  1920  group  shows  a  decrease 
in  the  value  of  livestock. 


-18- 


-  19  - 


lo  6.-Owner-oporator  faros  6:roupcu  by  dato  of  settlement:   Fil 
pr  of   c.  ,    avcrag  farm 


• 
• 

Iten                        :^iu 

I 
ill  : 

{   r^p   : 

Prior  : 

to      : 

1903   • 

19C. 
1907     : 

1908-  : 
191. 

?     : 

llJ18  : 

83: 

•17: 

1: 
21: 

65: 

8,950: 

5,185: 
342: 

197: 

348: 

81: 

: 

6: 
23: 

64: 

3,584: 

3,035: 
393: 

125: 
158:. 

7: 

! 

79: 

I 
9: 

120: 

7,371* 

6,200: 
71: 

186: 
400: 

162: 
69: 

1: 

80: 

83: 

8,5551 

6,500: 
7: 

277: 
501: 

20: 
96: 

58: 

0: 
19: 

67: 

8,42l! 

5,205: 
108: 

195: 
346: 

n- 
7<.': 

29: 

2:* 
36: 

65: 

12,800| 

2,500: 
512: 

159: 
586: 

Acreage  of  crops  harvested       ;          • 

a   ir.  crop  failure              :          ■ 

.  pasture   in  191.              cr,  : 
Acreage  cover.-!  by                        :          • 

•                    * 

Purchase  price ;dol. : 

• 

.ial  paynent :dol.: 

.  hand  aft            nent . .  .  .dol.: 

Pr:                         t  to  farms:        :          : 

;nts  and                -ry..;dol.: 

Ini-.  1            t  "orth .....: dol.: 

6,072: 

3,712: 

5,857: 

7,235: 

5L856: 

4,157: 

roveoents  made         : 

:dol.: 

Purchase  price  plus  cost  of     ;          : 

-.-_  cr.ts.Ui»de  since         t          : 

-    .            :  dol . : 

t  val  -                                     :          ■ 

Land  a.           -  1 dings :  dol . ; 

-  3  and  nachincry . . :  dol . , 

1,202; 

10,152: 

12,804 
624 
817 
178 

2,075: 

5,659: 

12,9711 
578: 
831: 
3D5: 

1,966 

9,337 

"17,793 

.  ,221 

*       433 

101 

1,314: 

;     9,869: 

:   13,955: 
:          63-1 
:          985 
:          398 

1,151: 

9,582: 

12,342: 

715: 

:     1,023: 

:          190: 

1,459: 

14,259: 

14,875: 

941: 
1,463: 

139: 

1 3tal  value :  dol . 

Debts: 

Uortga^cs :  dol . 

:      14,423 

:        2,841 
:            157 
:              11 
:              67 

:    U.GG6: 

!               i 

:             0: 

:             0: 

0: 

57; 

19, 54 3 

857 

143 

0 

0 

:    15,972 

:      3,228 

:          182 

0 

0 

:   14,270: 

:      2,172: 

:         3-17: 

25 : 

:          125: 

17,418. 

4,612: 

218: 

43: 

375: 

•  J.  deb t  s ;i dol . 

:        3.076 

:            57: 

!      1,000 

:      3,410 

:      2 , 669 

,348: 

rth :  dol . 

in  no  t  vot  th j  dol . 

• 

:nt  value  of        : 
farm  over  purchase  price     ; 
plus  coct   of   improvements   :dol. 

receipts  from  outside      : 
employment  since  pure:. _ c ._.:  dol. 
.  tal  put   into  far:.-.:  dol . 
-.1   taken  out  of  fam : 

:      11,347 
:        5,275 

:        2,652 

: 

273 
282 

:   14,629 
:   10,317 

:      7,312 

:          147 
:            36 
:         495 

I   18,548 

:   11,691 

:     8,456 

429 
:             C 

: 

:   12,562 
:      5,277 

:      4,086 

:          378 
:          227 
:      1,503 

:    11,601 

:     5,745 

:     2, 

:          580. 

:          660- 

8: 

12,170: 
;      8,003: 

616: 

7-  1: 

312: 
75: 

-  ISa  - 


Tablo  6. -Owner-operator  furr.s  grouped  by  dato  of  sc  .  .t:   Financial 

progross  of  sottlors,  avoragc  cont'd. 


It.-. 


Far  || .  .  , 

Acreago  por  far 

Acreago  of  crops  harveitod 



Acreage  in  crop  failuro 

-  - 

Acreage  in  pastur-             -24, 
-age  covorod  by  r.atcr 
rights  in  1924 


chaeo  price 

il  payment 

Cash  on  hand  after  paym<- 
Proporty  brought  to  :  ■  . 
Implements  and  machinery., 

Livestock 

.  tial  r.  

Cost  of  i.Tipro            .3  made 
since  pur  

Purchase  price  pluc  cost  of 
inn;                                  -  ::ce 
pcu  

Present  valuo: 

Land  and  buildings , 

Imp:  fee.  'and  machinery . . 

Liv  

Car  ffld 


Total  value. 

Dot*. 

Mortgages 

Pcrso: 

Herd  credit, 

Other  dc I      . 

Tot-1  debts. 


•     .  

.:>o  in  net  

ess  of  present  valuo  of 
180  price 
plus  cost  of  impr 

to  from  outside 
eoploymont  ainco  purchase.. 
Outside  capital  put   into  farm 
our  c 


.nit 


1919 


:. 


::o 

aero 

aero 

acre 
ion 

aero 

dol. 

dol. 
dol. 

dol. 
dol. 
dol. 

dol. 
dol. 


dol. 
dol. 
dol. 
dol. 


dol. 


dol. 
dol. 
dol. 
Ml. 

dol. 

dol. 
dol. 


lol. 

dol. 
dol. 
dol. 


12 
79 

45 

0 
0 

72 

12,236 

1,872 
208 

167 

199 


747 


12,983 


15,233 

544 

1,019 

108 


16,904 


6,183 

272 

0 

0 


:, "..  :.- 


io, 

.003 


2,250 


502 
60C 

67 


1920 


13 
39 

29 

1 
5 

39 

9,831 

5,892 

631 

265 
771 


7,559 


8-17 


10,173 


10,061 

315 

305 

50 


1921 


8 
57 

44 

1 
8 

56 

14,744 

8,206 
125 

69 

39 


47- 


15,218 


12,250 
244 
352 
151 


10,732:   13,497 


t 


2,946 
32 
19 
31 


:,:::; 


7 ,  704 


-117 


259 
52 
2381 


4,900 

63 

0 

9 


^7972 


8,525 
86 


-0,968 

249 
128 

0 


19  22 


2 

22 

21 

0 
0 


1923 


: 


22 

6,230 

6,250 
2,000 

0 
0 


8,250 


2,350 


8,600 


8,500 

725 

225 

50 


9,500 


250 
0 
0 
0 


25C 


9,250 
1,000 


-100 


70 
0 
0 


5 
35 

25 

0 
6 

4,820 

515 
55 


6,690 


7,164 


7,100 

700 

257 

90 


6,147 


2,180 
0 
0 
0 


L.i,: 


5,957 


-       : 

• 

513; 

0: 

69: 


L: 

2: 

: 
0: 
0: 

3,625: 

1,625: 
0: 

0: 


1 ,  62w. 


3,600; 

100: 

75: 

0: 


3,773: 


.00; 
0: 
0: 
0: 


0,  ^  *: 


1,775: 
150: 


-.  i: 


0- 

:: 


Table  7.      Owner-operator  farms.      Comparison   of   values   of    various 
items  at   time  of   settlement   and  at   time  of   enumeration 


1  TEM 

hace: 

PRICE 

plus           : 
improve-  : 
ml  jts   vs  : 

ORCFE.NT      : 

v.-.lue    : 

Deferred: 

payments: 

vp         : 

pfesent    i 

DEBTS     : 

Cash      : 

Equ  i  p-    : 

'     ML' 

Li  >. 
STOCK 

)         ! 

5,659    : 
12,97  1    : 

Dollars : 

Dollars : 
303 

Dollars : 

!25 

573 

Dollars 

Settlers    prior    to    1903    (14  farms 
-   settlement                                   : 
At   enumeration 

548    ! 
57    : 

158 

Increase 

+7r3ia 

-4 

53 

+  373 

1903  -    1907   settlers    (7   farms)    : 
At   settlement 
-"   enumeration 

!      9,337    • 
.    IT.' 

1,171 
1.000 

71 
101 

186 

.       1,221 

:        400 
:        433 

Increase 

+  3,45 

-171 

+30 

+  1  ,0 

+  33 

1903  -    1912  settlers    (li    farms). 

At    SETTLEMr 

At   enumeration 

!      9,869    ! 
T,955 

.  '  2,065 

3,^10 

:               7 

398 

:          277 
634 

:        501 

Increase 

+4.0 

.    +1,351 

+-5S 

+-357 

+464 

1913  -    1917    SETTLERS    (20  farms) 
at   settlement 
At   enumeration 

;     9,582  : 
.    12.342 

,      3,215 
•3.359 

103    : 

190 

196   : 
:          715 

346 

1.023 

Increase 

s   f2. 

546 

+  32 

!      +677 

1918  settlers    (8  farms) 
At  settlement 
At  enumeration 

:    14,259 
:    14, 

:      9,900 

:      5.243 

:          512 

: 

:           169 
:          941 

:        586 

:    1.463 

-REA6& 

: 

:    -4,652 

-373 

^773 

:      +377 

1919  settlers    (12  farms) 

SETTLEMc 

At   enumeration 

:    12, 
:    15,233 

:      7,364 

:      6.455 

:           c£9 

:           103 

:           167 

:          544 

:         199 

:    1.019 

Increase 

:   +2.250 

:         -    33 

: 

:              77 

:      + 

1920  8ettlers   (13  farms) 
At  settlement 
At   enumeration 

:    10,178 

: 

-',,439 

:         , 

:          G3I 

: 

:          265 

: 

:         77  1 
:        306 

Increase 

: 

:         -411 

: 

: 

:     -  ' 

-20- 


TaOLE  7.   OWNER-O^EPATO*  f ARMS :   ComPaRI60N  OF  VALUES  OF  VARIOUS 

ITEMS  AT  TIME  OF  SETTLEMENT  AND  AT  TIME  OF  ENUMERATION  (CQNTINUEo) 


l Purchase    : 

-rreo   : 

: 

PR  1  c  e 

payment^ : : 

plus            : 

vs 

Cafh        : 

Equip-        : 

.'E- 

1  TEM 

'improve-    : 
ts   vs    : 
bcnt     : 

VALUE 

PRESENT        I 
DEBTS        I 

ment 

STOCK 

Dollars       ! 

Dollars    : 

Dollars    : 

Dollars    : 

vllarb 

1921     SETTLERS     (    8    FARMS)        [ 

A  r    SETTLEMENT 

15,219    l 

,    38     i 

!*5 

69   : 

39 

ENUMERAT ION 

iL.r 

••,"7  2 

<f44 

! 

Increase 

-2.9 

-    ,  "  ■ 

►2S 

«  175 

4-813 

1922    8ETTLER8      (2    FARMS) 

At  settlement 

8,600 

:              0 

1      2,000 

:                0 

:            0 

ENUMERATI ON 

CO 

3 

50     • 

:            725 

225 

Increase 

- 

: 

:    -1.9 

+72r 

-225 

1923    8ETTLER8      (5    FARMS ) 

AT     6LTTLEVU 

:        7 , 1 54 

;      2,190 

l      1,300 

:             515 

55 

At   enumeration 

:        7, 100 

:      2,123 

I            90 

:             700 

: 

Increase 

■    54 

:          -10 

.   -I.2IC 

+  • 

.      -202 

1924    SETTLERS     (1     FARM) 

At   settlement 

:        3,625 

:      2,000 

:            0 

0 

:            0 

ENUMERATI  ON 

:        3. 600 

:      2.000 

0 

:             100 

:          75 

Increase 

:          -   ^5 

3 

-  ;:  • 

. 

All   settlers    (101    farms) 

At  settlement 

:      10,152 

:      3,765 

:          342 

:             197 

348 

AT     ENUMERATION 

:       12.804 

:      3.075 

;73 

: 

: 

Increase 

:      1-2.6 

:      -  JI8S 

-164 

:          t427 

:      +4® 

-21- 


TO  12. 


FARMS  OPERATED  BY  TENANTS 

-  RELATING  TO  FARMS  OPERATED  BY  TENANTS  ARE  GIVEN   IN  TaBLE8  8 


Size  of  Farms  and  Uses  or  Land 
19^4 


Table  8  presents  statistics  as  to  size  and  uses  of  land  kor  107 
farms  operated  bv  tenants. 


Table  6.   Tenant  farms  classified  bv  net  returns  \J ,  1924: 
Average  size  of  farms  and  uses  of  land 


TEM 


Farms 

Acreage  per  farm 

Acreage  of  crops  harvested 
per  farm 

Percentage  of  area  of 
farm 

Acreage  of  crop  failure 
per  farm 

Percentage  of  planted 

ACRES 

acreaje   n  pasture  per  farm 
Percentage  of  area  of 
farm 


Unit 


No 

ACRE 


ACRE 
P  CT 

ACRE 
P  CT 
ACRE 
P  CT 


AC5£  SVERED    BY    WATER 

PER    FARM  :acre 

Percentage  of   area   of  : 

fARM  |P     CT 


We  i  gmted:Farms 

AVERAGE 
OF     ALL 
FARMS 


142 
103 

73 

2 
2 

16 
i  I 

126 

89 


SHOWING 

NET 

LOSSES 
18 
80 


60 
75 

3 
5 
6 
7 

74 
93 


Farms   showing   net   returns   qf 


$1 
$999 


39 
36 


95 
70 

4 

4 

I  I 

8 

16 
85 


$1,000-:$ 2, 000?   $3,000 


$1,999 

.$2,999: 

34 
144 
! 

:            7: 

:        243: 

i               . 

1  1  1 

:        !46: 

77 

:          60: 

-i/ 

:            2: 

■il 

t: 

15 

68: 

10: 

28: 

OR 
OVER 


27 

ee 


9 
202 


65 
82 


t 


243 
100 


21 

10 

80 
89 


Percentages   are   commuted  from   the   totals  for   the   groups. 

\j      "net  return,"  a8  used    in   classifying  farms,    is    the   exce8s   of   receipts 
from  farm   products   over   expenditures   for  farm   purp08es. 

2}       Lesb    THAN    one-half    of    one    PER    CENT. 


-22- 


El  .         3r     THE  TENANT  FARMS  SHOWED  NET  LOSSES  FOR  1924.    Tw I RTY" 
NINC  ADDITIONAL  FaRMS  SHOWED  >*        jRNS  LESS  THAN  $1,000.    The  TWO  GROUPS 

constitute  slightly  more  than  one~half  the  farms  reported,  showing  that  one" 
half  the  tcnant  farmers  maoe  no  more  than  wages,  aside  from  rent  and  family 
living  obtained  from  the  farm. 

The  average  acreage  pep  farm  is  142  acres  which  is  56  acres  greater 
than  the  average  size  of  owner~operate d  farms.   the  acreage  of  harvested 
cr0p6  per  farm  is  103  acres  which  is  53  acres  larger  than  the  corresponding 

JRE    FOR     THE     OWNER-OPERATED    FARMS.         The    AVERAGE     ACREAGE     COVERED    BY     WATER 

rights   exceeds    the   corresponding   figure   for    the   farms   operated  by    their 
owners   by    an    even  wider  margin   -   6!    acres. 

The   acreage    in    pasture    in   this    group    is   only   about   one-half   as 
-    as   for   the   owner-operated  farms. 

The    tenant  farms   are   not  only   much   larger   than    those   operated  by 
their  owners,   but    they   are  much  more  highly    improved. 

The    ACREAGE    OF     CROP    FAILURE    per    FARM     is    not    large    for    ANY    GROUP. 

Value   of    Tenant  Farms   and  Farm   Property,    Debts, 
Net    Investment,    ano   Expenditures    and   Receipts   for    1924. 

In  Table  9  are  presented  the  data  as  to  the  value  of  farms  operated 
by  tenants,  the  value  of  tenasits  '  property,  their  debts,  and  their  expendi- 
tures  ano  receipt8  for    1924. 


-23- 


Tablc  asbifieo  3v    .  »e  j/,    1 9c?4 :      Value  of 

.   PROPERTY,  DEUTS,  NET  INVESTMENT  PEn  FARM,  , 
AND  RETURNS  IN  1924. 


Acreage   per  farm 

PER     ACnC 

Value  of    te\ants    property 
Implements    a\:  machinery 

Av :      .  ;  =tz 

Li  vest 

Average    per   acre 

H     ON     H. 
rOTAL  ANT     PROPERTY 

re '  ts 

Tenants1    \ct    in 

rm   expend  i  tu- 
srest  -    inve8tme 

'  i  at  |  on  .on    implements 

Total   cost 

-- 

"ROM     FARM     PRODUCTS 

-LS 
0T-  COME     FROM     FARM 

Tot  ov.  FAf-    . 

PROPERTY 

n  PTS    FROM    FARM 
.  OJCTS 

Over  expenditures 

O  IN- 


OvE~  "JRES 


TEFEST 
AND  DEF 


:ave- 

o:Farms  :F\kvs 
: show  in : 

tHOV 

.    .300 

Fw>2, 

. 

Unit 

:OF     ALL 

:   fa 

:        NET 
ILOt 

:        -99 

: 3 1,999 

.  999 

:   or 

'.OVER 

Nc 

:           18 

:           39 

: 

7 

: 

: 

:          SO 

:         136 

: 

:        243 

202 

:  ao, 

: 12,094 

:I7, 

,988 

,  143 

:32,000 

DOL. 

:          !46 

: 

:         130 

: 

:         141 

: 

DOL 

COLLAR 

:          723 

732 

657 

796 

: 

:        700 

,-AR 

:               5 

:             9 

:             5 

: 

: 

:             3 

COLLAR 

:      I  , 

:    1,295 

:    1,109 

,281 

:    3,262 

.    29 

DOL 

:             13 

:            15 

: 

: 

:           13 

:           14 

DOLLAR 

:             70 

:           34 

: 

:          43 

: 

: 

DOL: 

:      2, 

.    2,0 

:     1.861 

:    3. 120 

:    3.955 

.        . 

DOL 

422 

604 

41  i 

:        404 

:     ~229- 

:    ~i>yr 

DOLLAR 

:    a. 

:     1,457 

:    I .450 

:    2.716 

:    3,725 

:    3,423 

DOLLAR 

!      2,.  7-, 

:    1,890 

:    1,932 

.752 

:    4, 173 

:   4,603 

DOL 

:           152 

102 

:         102 

: 

: 

:        240 

_AR 

I23i 

124 

1  13 

:         135 

:         1  15 

: 

OOLLAR 

2.  a 

2,  ! 

2.  ! 

. 

DOL 

3,710. 

1, 

2,507: 

.217 

:    6,510 

:    9,424 

dollar; 

159 

99. 

13. 

39 

-ar: 

9: 

23  i 

9: 

3 

18. 

- 

DOLL 

5: 

0  : 

18  : 

0        ! 

Q 

LARI 

3, 

1, 

2, 

.  267: 

6, 

53 

oollap: 

1,136: 

-   • 

525: 

. ,465: 

2,337: 

4,821 

DOL;         : 

; 

-    £77: 

: 

.275: 

2,076: 

ar: 

: 

-    1 

310: 

: 

1 ,951: 

. 

H    NEXT  PA 


Tao  .ms   class  if  i  eo  bv   net  N8  _i/ ,    1924;      Value  of 

»A    PRC  ,     OEQTf  ,  INVESTMENT    PER    FA'  COST 

ANO    RETURNS     IN     1924     (cONTINUl 


•is    : 
avl'         :    how i no: 

Farms    s 

. 

NET 

$1-      ■ 

. 

•     V 

•UNIT! 

.  ll    : 

: 

LOSSES 

$999      : 

.  399: 

. 

RECEI PTS 

Over  expenoi  tures 

:dol 

,    1 , 233 

-293 

.      633: 

; 1,533 

:    2,368 

Over  exp*                      and   in- 

1        N     NET     INVESTMENT 

:  col 

!    1,091 

:   -395 

:      531 

.  1 ,  3< 

. 

NOI TURES,      INTEREST 

NT,     AND 

DEPRECI ATI  ON 

:  DOL 

959 

:    -519 

:     418 

: 1 ,208 

:    1,992 

OR 


•  . 


. 


. 


PER    ACRE    ARE    COMPUTED    FROM     THE     TOTALS    t-OR    THC     QROUF      . 

I     RETURN,"        AS     UfED     IN     CLASSIFYING     FARMS,      IS     THE  lCEIPTS 

FROM    FARM    PRODUCTS     OVER    EXPENDITURES    FOR    FARM     PURPOSL      . 


The  average   value  of    the  farms    operated  by    tenants  wa6   much   i 
than   the  av  value  of    the  farms   operated  by    their   owners,    becaus:  (he 

H  TOTAL  a:        AND  THE  LARGER  ACREAGES  UNDER  WATER  Rl 

the  average  value  of  tenant  property  per  f  ..      ,  of  course,  sv 
because  it  includes  no  land  and  builds   .   in  this  :cction  th  t  ve 

more  livestock  and  equipment  than  have  the  owners  opcrating  their  own  ft 
ther  class  mas      •  eedin3  stock. 

Tenant  farm  expenditures  are  much  larger  than  those  for  owners 
■  incluoe  rent,  and  the  cultivation  of  much  larger  acreages  of 

CRC 

The  average  receipts  from  FARM  products  per  faf.m  ARE  MORE  than  twice 

LAR..C    FOB     THE     TENANT     FARMS     AS     FOR     THE     OWNER-OPERATED    FARMS,     AND    THE     EXC: 
°TS     OVER    EXPENDITURES      IS    MO&E     THAN     TV/ I  C  E    AS     GREAT.         The    FINANCIAL 
ADVA  OYED    BY     THE     TENANTS      IS     OFFSET      IN     PART    BY     RISING    VALUES     OF     REAL 

UT    THE    AVERAGE     ANNUAL     INCREASE     IN     VALUE     OF     REAL     ESTATE      IS     LESS     THAN 
"      THE    EXCESS     OF    NET     INCOME     TO     THE'   TENANTS     OVER     THAT     TO 
OWNERS     FOr 

BOTH    FARM    EXPENDITURES    AND    RECEIPTS     FROM    FARM     PRODUCTS     VARY     WITH 
,     THROUGHOUT     THE     GROUPS.  Th  E    GROUP    SHOWING    NET    LOSSES     SHO 

1         EBTEDNESS     PER    FARM,     AND    BY    FAR     THE    LOWEST    RETUPNS     F  ROM    FARM 
IT    SHOWS     THE     LA(  IZTURNC    FROM    OUTSIDE    LABOR. 

Class  i^  icat  ion  pr  l"arm  Expenqi  tu- 
Table  10  gives,  for  the  *      farms,  the  ■        amounts      -mm 
expended  for  various  items,  ihat  these  am0unt8  api. 

the  average  expenditures  per  farm,  and  of  the  average  p cc e i pt8  pc^   farm 

FROM    rAfiM     PROOUC 


T    FARMS     CLAS6lf I  ED    BV    NET    R  ,      I  924 ; 

PrinCipai  PER    FARM     IN     1924 


ARM 

-L    r*k.                   NOITURES 

=»ER    ACRE 

IPTS    FROM 

CARM     PRODUCTS 

Av                       -      •     ACRE 

OF 

FARM 

expendi  - : 

RECEI PTS 

from: 

FARM     PRO  DC  C 

OR 

Percen  • 

OF 

F  a  RM 

EXPENDI-  I 

ES 

Pepcenta 

OF 

RECEIPTS 

from  : 

-~*M     PRODUCTS 

T     ON     DEBTS 

OF 

ex  pen: 

TURES 

Or 

RECE 1 PTS 

from: 

MM     PRODUCTS 

cs 

Percen • 

OF 

FARM 

EXPENDI  "I 

TURES 

F 

OF 

RECE 1 PTS 

from  : 

FARM     PRODUCTS 

OF 

EXPENDI  -  : 

TUB 

• 

OF 

RECEI  PT 

from  : 

•  <M     PRODUC 

AlJTC  ,                    '.,     AND 

tractor 

■ 

OF 

TARM 

ex  pen: 

' 

OF 

receipts 

from: 

DUCTS 

* 

i  - : 

Or 

RECT I PTS 

from; 

•?M     PRODU'' 

OF     ALL      i 

showing: 

NET 

NET 

: 
39    : 

199: 

99: 

00 

OR 

OVER 

No 
acre 

18 

39. 

7. 
243: 

202 

DOL 

DOL 
DOL 

.  .74 

18 

:    3,710 

26 

:    1,890 
: 

:    1,415 
18 

•    1,982 

15 

,507 

13 

.    ^2 

19 

:4,2I7 

29 

: 

:   6,510 
27 

:9,4i 

47 

DOL 

:         189 

296 

149 

,       ' 

:      ; 

P    CT 

:             7 

:           16 

8 

5 

3 

DOL 

5 
499 

21 
595 

:             6 
:        355 

4 
:      474 

! 

:        997 

2 

P    CT 

19 

31 

18 

17 

. 

14 

P    CT 

DOL 

13 

42 
19 

14 
:           13 

:         11 
:          6 

:           15 
0 

7 

:           0 

P    CT 

!    il 

:             1 

:             1 

1        2/ 

: 

0 

P    CT 
DOL 

i      2/ 

:           17 

1 
:           1  1 

:             1 
:           15 

:       2/ 

22 

: 

:           20 

:  0 
:        22 

P    CT 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1        2/ 

1 

P          T 
DOL 

i      2/ 

:    1,497 

:             1 
61  1 

:             1 
:    1,118 

I            1 
:  1  ,737 

»        i 
.    5! 

2/ 

:3,3 

P    CT 

58 

:           32 

:          56 

56 

: 

P    CT 
DOL 

: 

43 

: 

45 
1  14 

!        1 

:        01 

P    CT 

5 

12 

! 

■ 

C.      i 

2 

P    CT 
DOL 

226 

16 
125 

21  1 

,    a 

1      300    l 

!     3 

P    CT 

9 

7 

1  1 

9   : 

7    , 

8 

P    CT 

6 

9 

8: 

OMPUTEO    FRO.V     THE      TOTALS    FOFi  ROUPS. 

ARMS      IS     TH<"     I  JM 

FARM     PRODUCTS    OVf-  3    FOR    FARM    PURr 

8     THAN    ON  OF     ON 


as    is   to  be  expected,    the   larjcst    item  of   expenditure  *'or   the 
tenant  farms    is    rent.         for  all  farms    taken   as   a   group,    ano  for   each 
of    the   groups,    except    that   showing   net   l08ses,    rent    is   more    than   half 
of    the   total   expend  i  tures  f  or  farm   purposes.        for  all   farms    taken   a8 
a    jroup   rent    equals   40    per   cent  of    the    total    receipts   from  farm    product 
while  for    the   group  showing  net  losses    it  equals   43   per   cent   of    thf.   re- 
ceipts from  farm   prooucts. 

Hired  labor  is  the  second  largest  item  of  expenditure,  being  19 
per  cent  of  the  total  for  all  farms.  for  the  groups  it  ranges  from  14 
per   cent    to   31    per   cent,    the  latter    percentage  being   that  for    the  group 

SHOWING    NET    LOSSES.  The     IMPORTANCE    OF     THIS      ITEM    ARISES     FROM     THE     PREVALENCE 

of  the  growing  of  sugar  beets  which  requires  a  large  amount  of  hand  labor. 
Feed  is  the  only  other  item  of  expenditure  of  great  importance  on 
the  tenant  farms. 

"  .--'F  IF  I  CAT  I  ON     QF     RECEI  PTS     FROM    FaRM     PRODUCTS 

Table  II  gives  the  average  receipts  per  farm  from  farm  products 

FOR  FARM8  OPERATED  BY  TENANTS  AND  THE  RECEIPTS  PER  FARM  FROM  THE 
PRINCIPAL  SOURCES  OF  INCOME. 


-27- 


TaOUC      II.         TENANT    FARMS     CLA6BIFIEO    BV     NET     RETURNS      \J  ,      I  924  \ 
Rr  TURNS     PER    FARM    FROM    PRINCIPAL    60URCE6     IN     I  924 


I  TEM 


Farms 

Ac  "CR    f-arm 

Receipts   from  farm   products 

AvCRAGE  PCR  ACRE 

Livestock 

Percentage  of  total 

Poultry 

Percentage  of  total 

Da  i  rv  prooucts 

Percentage  of  total 

Poultry  products 

Percentage  of  total 

•  IN 

Percentage  of    total 


Hay 

Percentage  o^    tctal 

AR    BEETS 

Percentage   of    total 


:    Unit: 
•  _ 

: 

:acre   : 

:dol     : 

:  ool      : 

:  DOL 

iP  ot  : 

:  dol      : 

:P  ct   : 

:ool      : 

:P  ct   : 

:  dol      : 

:P  ct   : 

:  dol     : 

:P  ct   : 

:  dol      : 

:P  ct   : 

:dol      : 

:  P   ct    : 

AVERAGE 
Or     ALL 
FARMS 


14c? 

3,710 
26 


240 
6 

42 


253 

7 
: 
61: 
2: 

j 

34 

385 
10 

,■212 
34 


;Parms   : 

Farms    e                   net   returns    0*" 

showing; 

$1      : 

.5,000 

NET 

$999' 

.$1,999 

:$2,999:   or 

LOSSES     . 

0VT.R 
9 

18: 

39; 

34: 

7 

80, 

136- 

144: 

243:      202 

1  ,415 

,507: 

4,217- 

6,510: 

9,424 

18 

18 

29 

27 

47 

164, 

94: 

212, 

759. 

728 

12: 

4:          5 

12. 

8 

49 

37 

54 

26: 

18 

3 

! 

:           ; 

i  sl   i 

2/ 

125 

295 

259 

274 

289 

9 

:           12 

:           6 

4. 

3 

28 

:          52 

99 

34 

43 

2 

:            2 

2 

1 

■i/ 

221 

:    1,105 

,331 

:    1,865 

.3,093 

16 

: 

32 

29 

33 

207 

:       319 

:        452 

466 

.      686 

15 

:          13 

II 

;             7 

7 

321 

:        536 

:    1,420 

:    2,976 

35 

23 

:          21 

:         34 

:          46 

48 

Averages    per   acre   and   percentages   are   computed  from    totals   f  or    the   groups. 
\J    "Net   return,"  as  U6E0    in   classifying  farms,    is   the   excess   of   receipts 

FROM    FARM    PRODUCTS    OVEN    EXPENDITURES    FOR    FARM     PURPOSES. 

2J      Less  than  one-half  o^  one  per  cent. 


-29- 


The   leaoinj  6ojrces   or    income  arc   the  same  for    t.u     1.  \r 

F0-  ^ATORs  -  URAIN  AND  *UGAR  BEETS  .    FOR  rWi   i  ARM8 

THE  TWO  ARE  OF  ABOUT  EQUAL  IMPORTANCE.    The  RELATIVE  IMPORTA'. 
BEETS  VARIES  WITH  THE  NET  RETURNS  TOR  THE  VARIOUS  GROUPS  EXCEPT  TOR  TmC 
GROUP  SHOWIN..  \fT  LOSSES.     FOR  THE  ".ROUP  SHOWr.  |  GRAIN  AND 

AR  BEETS  ARE  OF  LESS  IMPORTANCE  THAN  FOR  MOST  OF  THE  OTHER  GROUPS, 

while  hay   and  livestock  are  of  greater   importance. 

Returns    to   Oners   of    Rented  Farms 
Table    12  shows    the  average  values   of    renteo  farms   and  the  cost 

ANO  RETURNS  TO  .  THE  OWNERS  OF  THESE  FARMS  IN   1924. 


-29- 


Farms   clacch  irn  ev   net    returns    \Jjo   tenants,    iC 
Returns   to  a   of   renteo  farms 


T|  V 


Farm  6 

Ac  -  -  hm 

ACRLACil.  OF  CROPS  HARVESTED 

IN 

-M6 


Uni  t 

ACRE 
ACRE 
P  CT 


Value   of  land  and  ouildinqs:dol 

AvCPA^C     PCR     ACRE  : DOL 

JE    OF    buildings  : DOL 

per  acre  : dol 

Value  of    land  :  dol 

i'cr  acre  :  dol 

Costs:    19!  : 

Ta^  :dol 

Insurance  : dol 

Annual    charge   for  water: dol 
Depreciation   on  buildings:dol 


Total   costs 


/ 


Returns,    1924 

R{  : dol 

Average  per  acre  : dol 

Percenta  .r.  return  on 

value  of  farm  :P  ct 
Net  return  over  taxes, 
insurance  and  water 

charges  :  dol 
Percentage  return  on 

value  of  farm  '.p   ct 
net  rfzturn  over  taxes, 

jrance,  water  charge 

and  depreciation  : dol 

p  .eturn  on  : 

value  of  farm   %[ 


DOL 


:  ■ 

i 

:         -■•  L  L 

j:Fa 

.'ING 

MR     { 
9 

• 

. 

:   or 

: 

142 

: 

80 

:     OVER 

: 

:         I3G 

144 

: 

202 

:           103 

60 

95 

:         III 

146 

:           165 

:            73 

75 

: 

: 

60 

82 

:   20,699 
:          146: 

;    12,094 
151 

: 17,654 
:        130 

:22,9eS 
160 

,  !43 
141 

: 32,000 
:         158 

:      2,712 

:            19; 

W.256 
28 

:    1,969 
14 

:    3,188 
2if 

.   4,829 
20 

:    3,400 

:           '7 

:    17,987. 
:           \Z7: 

9,838 
123 

:I5,685 
116 

: 19,800 

,29,314 
121 

:  28,600 
141 

:           254- 

7: 

:             88; 

:            81. 

152 

6 
49 
69 

:        2a0 
:            5 

:          77 
59 

287 

8 

88 

96 

388. 

12 

192 

145. 

:        372 

8 

139 

102 

:          430; 

275 

361 

' 

! 

:      1,497: 
:            II: 

611: 
8 

i.ua. 

8 

1,737: 
12 

2,351. 
10: 

3,338 
17 

:          7.2: 

5.0. 

6.3: 

7.6 

6.9: 

10.4 

:      1 . 1 48 : 

404. 

I 
816: 

1,354: 

1,759' 

2,819 

:          5.5: 

3.3; 

4.6: 

5.9: 

5.2. 

8.8 

:      1,067: 

336: 

757: 

1,258: 

1,614; 

2,717 

k         5.2J 

k         2,8; 

v       4^3j 

*..,  V  *  &i 

I       4-7: 

8.5 

Averages  per  acre  and  percentages  are  computed  from  thc  totals  for  the  groups. 

\J    "Net  return,"  as  used  in  classifying  farms,  is  the  excess  of  receipts  from 
farm  products  over  expenditures  for  farm  purposes. 


-30- 


The    AVCRAGC     aR086     RETUR*:     I  R8    OF     RENTED    F  ARMS     IS     7.2    PEW 

CENT    C^  .ALUATIONS     POT     O'J     Imi  St     •   «rWS;      THf     I   i    \      m    rUNN     Atiovr     FXPrNDl" 

TURES      IS     5.5    PER    CENi;     A'.'C     THi  LTURN     ABOVE     EXITNOI  TUBES     AND     Dl  I  A" 

•'ER    CE  AODITION,      THE     OWNERS     HAVE     THE     BENEFIT     OF,  INCREASE 

IN     VALUE    OF     REAL     ESTATE,  ,     PRESUMABLY,      IS     AS     CfiEAT    FOR     THESE    FARMS     AS 

FOR    THOSE     OPERATED    BY     THEIR    OWNERS,     SHOWN    ON    PAuE     I  9a . 

The   perce\ta_e   of    return   to    the   owners    tends    to   vary   with    the   net 
return   to    the    te\a\ts    of  ml  farms. 

CC  DN  OF   RETURNS   TO  OWNER-OPERATORS  AND   TO  TENANTS 

In    Table    13,    the   returns    to  owner-operators   ano   to  tenants   are 

COMPARED.         ThROJ-HOUT     THE     TABLE     THE    RETURNS     TO    TENANTS     EXCEED    THOSE    TO 

ohyner— operators  .      The   "labor    income,"   shov-n   by    the   last  line   or    the   table 
•  mTS    is   more    THAN    three   and   one-half    times    as    great    AS    that   for 

THE    OWNER-OPERATORS. 


Table  3mpari30n   of   returns    to   owner-operators   and  to   tenants,    1924 


ESS   cc    Rl  "   from  farm   products: 

Over  exoi.  and    interest  on  net    investme\t 

cs,    interest   on  net    i n  vestment.  and 

I  ATI  ON 

Excess  or  total  receipts 

3    EXCC  (U    D      IMTI   -EST  ON     NET     INVESTMENT 

0\  ■  ,  *  ".  T     ON  NET     INVESTMENT, 


UN  I  T 


Nor 


DOLLAR 
DOLLAR 

DOLLAR 

DOLLAR 
DOLLAR 

OOLLAR 


OWNFR- 

OPERA- 

TQRS 


105 


517 

-201 


! 
-146 

-348 


TENANTS 


107 


I,  136 
934 

861 


I  ,  233 
1,081 

958 


-31- 


PF  COST  OF 

As     STATED     IN     T  .KAPHS     0~     THIS     REPORT,      IT      IS     NOT 

POSSIBLE     TO  JO    AND    WATER,     ANO     IN    MOST     CASES,      IT 

IS    NOT    POSSIBLE     TO    ST  K     The    COST    Or     LAND    ANO   WATER,     BECAUSE     THE,     PRICE 

PA  10  BV  THE  PRESET  HOLDERS  O^  THE  FARMS  INCLUDED  BOTH,  WITH  NO  SEPARATE 
PRICE     AST.  TO     EACH.  CVEN      IP      IT    WERE     POSSIBLE     TO     SEGREGATE      ITEMS     OP 

COST,  THE  TOTAL  IS  THE  SIGNIFICANT  FIGURE,  SINCE  IT  16  WHAT  THE  SETTLER 
MUST  MEET  IP  HE  IS  TO  SUCCEED.  Th I S  TOTAL  MAY  9E  MACE  UP  OP  CHEAP  LAND 
AND    HIGH-PRICED    WATER    0*    OP     HIGH~PRICED    LAN Z    AND    CHEAP    WATER.  In     THE     CASE 

Oc     THE    SECTION     OP     BOULOER     COUNTY     COVERED    BY     THIS     SURVEY     MOST     OP     THE     PRESENT 
HOLDERS     OP     THt     LAND    PGUGhT     AFTER     THE    WATER    RIGHTS    WERE     PAID    FOR     AND    LAND 
WATER    WERE     INCLUDcC     IN    A     SIN-LE    PRICE. 

The    AVERAGE    PURCHASE     PRICE     OF     THE    FARMS      INCLUDED     IN     THE     TABULATION 
JLE    6),     WAS     ^3,950,      INCLUDING    WHATEVER     IMPROVEMENTS    WERE     ON     THE     LAND    AT 
THE     TIME     OF     PURCHASE.         Th I S     WAS     AT     THE     RATE    OF     ABOUT     $108. PER     ACRE.         HOW- 
EVER,     THE     PARMS     INCLUDE,     ON     THE     AVERAGE,     ABOUT     ONE-THiRD    AS    MUCH     LAND    NOT 
"CR     WATE->     RIGHTS      \<?4     PER     CENT     OF      THE     TOTAl)      AS     THERE      IS     ACREAGE     COVERED 

3y   water   rights* 

The   average   excess   of    receipts   from  farm   products   ovep   expendi- 
tures     IN      I9«r*4    FOR     ALL     OWN£R~OPERA  TL  D    ^ARMS     TAKEN     AS     A     SINGLE    GROUP    WAS 
$517     PER     '  TABLES     3    AND     13).        FROM     THIS     MUST     COME    WHATEVER    ALLOWANCE 

Iff        STCRCST     ON  '".NT,      DEPRECIATION,     THE     LABOR     OF     THE    FARM 

OPERATOR     AND    HI8     PAMILY     ON     TH  r      -ARM,     AND     THE     REDUCTION     OF      INDEBTEDNESS     ON 
THF     >■  AIM. 

DEOUCT  TEREST     ON     NCT        NVCSTMENT    AND     DEPRECIATION     ON    BUILDINGS 

ANO    CQUI'  IS     A     ^  E     LABOR     INCOME.        BUT     INTEREST    ON     NET     I N~ 

VEF •  AND- DEPRECIATION     ARE    NOT     EXPENDITURES,     SO     THAT     The     AVERAGE    OWNER- 

-3<>- 


OPERATOR     IN     THIS     DISTRICT    MAS     $5  I  7     IN    AODITION     T  D    FAMILY     Ll\ 

08TAINEO    FRO  r    $     I  I     FOR    OUTS  I  DE    LAB         ,  WHICH     TO    L>.       . 

REDUCE    HIS     DEBTS,     AND    MAI  iMPROVl 

From  the  I9J4  record  ,       1   appears,  therefore,  tw        ^s  in  the 
section  or  Boulder  County  covrRtD  ov    the  survey  acre  not  • 

THEIR   INVESTMENT  AND  DEPREC  I  AT  I  0'-  .       H  LAND  AND  WATER  COS  T  I  N  i  $108 
PER  ACRE,  AND  HAD  ONLY  A  SMALL         '  ON  WHICH  TO  LIVE. 


MITION      '-  •     ■  ■ :    • 

FaRM.     -        Th>  ^T0P8    WERE     INSTRUCTED    TO     GET    SUPf  al 

SCHEQULE6    FROM    ALL    FARMERS    WHO    V/CRE  ALL    On    ANY     PART    Or     THEIR 

farms.   T-        ,  the  Census       r ion  of  a  farm  has  been  followed. 

OH    CENSUS     PURPOSES,      IP     ALL     THE     LAND    WHICH     IS     DIRECTLY 
FaRMEO    BY     ONE     PERSON,     EITHER    BY    HIS     OWN     LABOR    ALONE     Of<    WITH     THE    ASS  I  b 
'      VBER8     OF     HIS    HOUSEMOLO,     OR    HI  PCD    EMPLOYEES, 

"Do    NOT    REPORT    AS     A    FARM    ANY     TRACT    OF     LAND    OF     LESS     THAN     THREE    ACRES, 
UNLESS      ITS     PRODUCTS     IN     1924    WERE    VALUED    AT    $250    OR    MOF      ■ 

Valuc  .  -  The  values  of  farms  ano  farm  property  are  those  given  by 

■  rm        rs  to  the  census  enumerators.   enumerators  were  instructed 

to  accept  the  farm  operators1  valuations  unless  they  had  rearv.  to  believe 

that  they  were  below  the  actual  values  of  the  farms  or  were  grossly  exagger- 

guch  cases  they  were  to  q  i  ve ,  as  vcakly  as  they  could  oetermine, 

or  which  the  farm  including  buildings  and  improvements,  would 

SELL  UNDER  NORMAL  CONDITIONS  (.NOT  AT  FORCED  SALe).    As  A  RULE  ENUMERATORS 

e  local  men  who  were  well    informeo  as    to  local  values    through   their 
vledqe   of   transfers,    appraisals   for   loa  i    .         3  assessments   for   taxation. 

Water    rights,    in  many    places,    go  with    the   land,    and  their   value    is 
udeo    in    the    values   of    the  rarvs.       i\    othcr   places    they  may   be   owned 
tly   of    the   land  and  can   be  assigned  a   separate   value.       in   an   a^- 

without  w  ^ittle  value,   while   land  with  water  may   have 

a  high  value;    but  usually    it    is  not   possible   to  t  ate   the  value    that 

shoulo  be   assigneo  to   the  land  from   that    that  should  be   assigned   to   the  water, 
that   should  be   assigned  to    the    improvements  made  9y    the   settlers 
way   of    development.      '/.here  water  rights  may   be  sold  separately  from 
land  there  are,   usually,    enough   transfers   to  f i  x   values. 

'•    'nvi  .  t    investment,    as  used   in   this   study,    is    the 

ice    between   the   8um  of    the  values   of    the  farm,    its    eouipment  and  live- 
stock,   and  cash   on  hand,    ano   the  sum   of    the   debts   of   all   classes. 

For   computing    interest  on  net    investment,    the  r  ,te  used   is    the 

.'mb  by    dividing   the   total    interest   paid  on    >vll   classes    of 
tednes8   by    the   total   amount  of    debts   on  which    the    interest    is   compute.. 

Ta/T  R  .—  r         \  FARMS  ARE  NOT  REPORTED  FOR  »=*APMS  OPERATED  BY 

"HE  PURPOSE  OF  COMPUTING  THE  NET  RETURNS  TO  C        'ROM  RENTED 
•MS,  TW        i 0  OF  THE  AMOUNT  C  TO  THE  VALUE  OF  FARMS  HAS  BE 

INCO  TOR  1        JMS  PEPORTED  BY  THu  I R  OWNERS,  AND  THE  RATE  OETE^ 
18  WAY  13  USED  IN  EST  I  ON  RENTED  FARt.   . 

FOR  •   THL I R  OWNERS   IT  IS  ASSUMEO  THAT 

'.ONE.    IN  CASES   IN  WHICh 
D  AND  THE  AM0UNT8  OF  PREMIUMS  ARE  NOT  REPORTED, 
JM8  ARl         /       :'.   THC   OASIS  O^  AV,  •  •  i.S  COMPUTED  FROM  THE 

BOTH  ARE  REPORTED.     N  COMPUTING  THE  N  MS  TO  1 


OWNERS  OF"  RENTED  FARMS  PREMIUMS  ON  INSURANCE  ON  BUILDINGS  ARE  ESTIMATED  ON 
3ASIS  OT  THE  RATIO  Be       .  VALUE  OF"  BU'  NO  AMOUNT  OK         JM8 

"N  WHICH  BOTH  THES'  R  E  REPORTED. 

Rent.    -    The   censuc  ole   calls   for   the  amount   of   cash  re?,  i  , 

while   the  supp.  |  dule  calls   for   the  quantities   and  values   of 

products    delivered  to   the   owner  as   rental.  n   values  were  not   reporteo 

ave-  ~>n   other   reports   from   the  same   project  were   used    in 

computing    value     . 

■-  ipts  ,    192-+.    -      The  a/ounts   reported  as   receipts   from   liv 
and  po.  -re   the  net    increases   from  january    i,    1924,    to  january      , 

into   account   the    inventories    at   the   tv/o   dates   and  purchases 
sales    during    the   ye-    . 

For    LIVESTOCK    AND     POULTRY     PRODUCTS     AND    FOR  CROPS     THE     VALUES     OF 

PRODUC  >LD,     AND     THE     VALUES     OF     PRODUCTS     HELD    FOR  SALE     CONSTITUTE    RECEIPT      . 

5     OF     PRODUCTS     USED    OR    HELD    FOR    FAMILY    USE  OR    FOR    FEED    OR    SEED    ARE 
RECEIPTS. 

ON    SOME    OF     THE     PROJECTS    SURVEYED    SUGiAR     BEETS      IS     AN      T.'POPTANT     CROP. 
3EETS     WERE    SOLD    ON     CONTRACTS     UNDER    WHICH     THE     PRICE     TO     BE     RECEIVED    BY 

.WES    WAS     DETERMINED    BY     THE     PRICE    RECEIVED    FOR     THE     SUGAR    MADE    FROM     THE 
"HE     FULL     PRICE    THAT     THEY    RECEIVED    FOR      1924    BEETS    WAS     NOT 
DE  |L     THE    FALL     OF      1925    AFTER     THE    COMPUTATIONS    WERE    '^ADE.         In     COM~ 

PU  i£     VALUE    OF    SU'iAR     E.EETS     THE     APPROXIMATE     PRICE    RECEIVED    f  OR      1923    BEETS 


v  OF  FLORIDA 


3  1262  08921  5247 


II I  llllll  III  III 
¥1 


f1 


^ 


